Actually No. All my posts on this thread lay out why you can trace the Thompson Submachine Gun developed by General Thompson from Cleveland to West Hurley, New York. In a word, cumulative. A good place to start reading would be my first post and then see how I have easily answered all your questions concerning this line of succession throughout this thread. That's your proof? Numrich's own statements as recorded by Helmer? Numrich's actions concerning the TSMG from 1951 consisted of inaction until 1975.

In March 1944, the Auto-Ordnance Corporation under Russell Maguire was re-organized and a new parent company emerged named Maguire Industries, Inc. All assets pertaining to the Thompson Submachine gun became a division of the parent company; this division was titled the Ordnance Division of Maguire Industries. The assets of this division were placed in storage and sat dormant for the next few years. In 1949, Kilgore Manufacturing, Westerville, Ohio, paid $385,00 to McGuire Industries for all the remaining assets of what now had become the Ordnance Division of Maguire Industries. Kilgore had the intention to resale the now former Ordnance Division to the Egyptian government because officials at Kilgore thought the Egyptian government wanted to manufacture the Thompson Submachine gun. This deal was done with future manufacturing as the stated pretext. Kilgore did not purchase a corporation. It purchased all the rights and assets of the Ordnance Division of Maguire Industries. The Auto-Ordnance Corporation, New York, New York ceased to exist upon the creation of Maguire Industries. Again, you are confusing corporations with the transfer of all rights and assets involving the Thompson Submachine Gun developed by General Thompson. Think about the Thompson Automatic Arms Corporation came into existence when the Russell Maguire era began and was phased out when no longer needed. Again, don’t follow the corporation, follow the business enterprise and proprietary interests. Given the fact the seller (Maguire Industries) has never claimed any ownership rights in what was sold in 1949 and George Numrich’s uncontroverted statements and actions over the years, I think the rights issue is well settled. Of the 251 total pages in Helmer's thesis book, six paragraphs are devoted to Numrich's connection to what happened to Maguire's "Ordnance Division." There is no mention by Helmer of any continuing chain regarding the existence of the Auto-Ordnance Corporation beyond 1944.

See above - You seem to find Numrich way more convincing than Helmer in regards to preserving this non existent chain that came to a dead stop in 1944.

Can you provide me a copy of your brother’s interview with Mr. Helmer? Has the interview been published? I would enjoy reading it. Since Numrich is dead, maybe we can get Helmer to chime in on what transpired. Too bad when my brother interviewed Helmer for his Northwestern journalism class he never broached this subject.

Since Numrich is dead, maybe we can get Helmer to chime in on what transpired. Too bad when my brother interviewed Helmer for his Northwestern journalism class he never broached this subject.

Arthur and TD,

I am not attempting to intrude on your detailed discussion regarding the succession of the Auto-Ordnance Corporation, however, I can answer your question regarding what transpired when Bill Helmer interviewed George Numrich.

Your discussion prompted me to call Bill Helmer and ask when what he remembered about the interview. I spoke with him this morning and he stated he never asked George Numrich if he obtained all the patent rights, etc. He also stated he never requested to see any documentation regarding the purchase of the Auto-Ordnance assets. He stated he remembers that a lot of the material was still in storage when he interviewed him for his book. Unfortunately, he cannot say with any certainty whether he believes Numrich obtained all rights and patents to the Auto-Ordnance Company, he simply doesn't know. In his own words, "I simply didn't ask him that question."

This doesn't put an end to the disagreement about sucession, but Helmer says that he cannot add any further information, other than what he wrote in his book.

Now that's what I call timing. Thank you for your infusion of current confirmation on a part of this subject that can now be laid to rest. Your conversation with Helmer doesn't provide a definitive solution to the mysterious sale, but it does mean that Helmer can not be a reference for Numrich's claim as to what he exactly purchased.

But just to extrapolate from this breaking news, it would seem that Helmer would not be able to verify what rights Maguire sold Kilgore either since he probably did not see any documents pertaining to that sale. It would stand to reason that Helmer would assume Numrich got whatever Kilgore got. If Helmer can't confirm what Numrich got, he probably can not confirm what Kilgore got either.

But just to extrapolate from this breaking news, it would seem that Helmer would not be able to verify what rights Maguire sold Kilgore either since he probably did not see any documents pertaining to that sale. It would stand to reason that Helmer would assume Numrich got whatever Kilgore got. If Helmer can't confirm what Numrich got, he probably can not confirm what Kilgore got either.

Arthur,

I think that is a fair assessment of what Bill was trying to tell me. He didn't ask specific questions about patents, copyrights, etc. He essentially just worked from his notes of his interview with George Numrich. He told me he did not see any specific documents relating to the sale of the assets.

I have not perused his book for some time, but he may have some foot notes regarding the sale from Maguire to Kilgore to Willis, I don't know. He has received requests from others interested in this succession, and he tells them the same thing, he didn't see or have access to actual documents regarding the sale.

Chuck,This great information. Thank-you for taking the time to ask Bill Helmer about this issue when he interviewed George Numrich. Actually, Helmer’s response to your question does not surprise me. I assumed Helmer had been asked this question before when this issue became a hot button topic given Helmer is certainly accessible to some in the Thompson world. I always figured if Helmer had a definitive answer, it would have come out years ago. The fact of the matter is Helmer never asked George Numrich about manufacturing rights, patents, trademarks, etc. However, what Helmer did was find out was how the Thompson Submachine Gun was sold by Maguire Industries and the circumstances surrounding this sale and the one other sale prior sale before George Numrich came into the picture. The information concerning how these sales came about is so important in putting together what actually transpired. Without Helmer, no one may have known about how Kilgore Manufacturing purchased the Thompson from Maguire Industries for $385,000 with the pretext of selling the manufacturing rights to the Egyptian government. And how after that deal did not materialize, Kilgore sold out to Fredrick Willis, a former executive of the former Auto-Ordnance Corporation, New York, New York. And then George Numrich purchased everything from Willis. The reason the question about manufacturing rights, patents, trademarks, etc. never came up in the interview between Numrich and Helmer is very obvious. As stated by Helmer, “ In addition, Numrich still builds, sell and services Thompsons. Numrich’s “new” Thompsons are identical to the earlier models and are made up largely from surplus parts, with the exception of the frames and receivers. These are machined as needed in the company’s shop and bear most of the original Auto-Ordnance markings.” As I always suspected, this was not an issue in the interview since George Numrich was engaged in manufacturing Thompson’s at the time of the interview with Helmer. Seriously, what question is there really to ask when Thompsons were being manufactured and advertised for sale by Numrich Arms Corporation. However, it is interesting to know for a fact that Helmer never broached the subject of rights, trademarks, patents, etc. with Helmer during his interview and correspondence.

The correspondence between George Numrich and William Helmer went on from 1963 to 1968 with at least one interview in April 1967. Helmer’s book was first published by Macmillan in 1969. During this same time period, George Numrich was interviewed by another writer for an article by Ray Bearse, titled, The Thompson Submachine Gun, Weapon of War and Peace, published in the 1967 edition of Gun Digest. At the end of the story, George Numrich, in a discussion concerning the development of a new semi-auto Thompson by a company named Tri-State Tool and Die Company in Frostburg, MD, stated, to wit: “Numrich states that, since his company holds the patents, trademarks, etc. on the Thompson SMG, it is doubtful if any other company could produce a Thompson of any kind.” Let’s recap a minute. The question of manufacturing rights never arose during the Helmer letters or interview because it was a non-issue; George Numrich was engaged in the manufacture of Thompsons while Helmer was doing his research. However, when these manufacturing rights became an issue for another writer, the question was directly asked and answered by George Numrich. The writer asking the question was none other than the Editor of Gun Digest, John T. Amber. I don’t recall any company named Tri-State Tool and Die Company ever marketing a semi-automatic Thompson. I also have never heard anything to suggest John Amber would print something he believed was false. And again, I have never heard anything that indicated George Numrich was anything other than an honest businessman. Given George Numrich’s statement back in 1967 when George Numrich was directly confronted with this issue, it is very obvious George Numrich acquired the total assets, including the manufacturing rights, patents, trade-marks, copyrights, etc. of the former Ordnance Division of Maguire Industries.

Again, Chuck, thank-you for the additional information. This type of new information is but one of many things that makes this board great. To everyone who would like more information on this topic, I suggest you read Helmer’s book and all the footnotes. In addition, obtain a copy of the 1967 Gun Digest referenced above, and review all the old Numrich Arms Corporation advertisements and flyers. The line of succession from Cleveland, Ohio to West Hurley, New York is complete.

You guys keep walking back into the theater where the same movie is playing and then head for the box office for your refund. What did you expect when you keyed on the thread?

TD,

I proposed to you several times in my posts to reconsider you minority, if not exclusive, opinion about the lineage if Helmer himself admitted that he was never shown any document, nor had any personal knowledge on any of the sales from 1949.

You had good reason to ignore my proposal. But you continue to prop up your dead horse (so naturally I have to beat it) with more intentional misinterpretations of Helmer's book, and your last refuge, the "Gun Digest" article

QUOTE

Numrich still builds, sell and services Thompson's. Numrich’s “new” Thompson's are identical to the earlier models and are made up largely from surplus parts, with the exception of the frames and receivers. These are machined as needed in the company’s shop and bear most of the original Auto-Ordnance markings.

There are no newly made from the ground up "Thompson's" with a N.A.C. suffix of prefix on them. These receivers were either imported by Numrich or were Colt/Savage/AO receivers that came out of the crates.

Numrich, nor Trast, ever made any new TSMG receiver in Mamaroneck, or West Hurley, New York until 1975. If Numrich used a receiver that already had the "ORIGINAL" Auto-Ordnance markings then obviously Numrich didn't make the receiver, it was already made. Notice Helmer says "BUILDS" (not manufactures), sells and services TSMG's.

Hell, even by 1969, Numrich still had not unpacked the machinery from the crates he purchased back in 1951.

QUOTE

Up through the early 1970's, Numrich sold Thompson parts, guns were repaired, and complete guns were ASSEMBLED (not manufactured) for sale as the demand arouse. After years in LIMBO (31 years) the "NEW" Auto-Ordnance Corporation (although it was in fact ORDNANCE DIVISION), was sold to Numrich employee Ira Trast.

Your constant drum beat about the "chain is complete" is really more appropriately set to Aretha Franklin's 1967 tune. Coincidentally, the same year Numrich was making his anemic "doubtful any other company could produce a Thompson of any kind" protest to Amber Frey.

Of course he wasn't certain since he knew the truth about what he actually bought from Willis.

Helmer reported the Maguire Industries sale of the Thompson to Kilgore Manufacturing including the price and the reason Kilgore was interested in purchasing the Thompson. As per GIJIVE, Helmer as early as this morning stated he only knew what he wrote in his book – and he certainly documented the 1949 sale. I proposed to you several times in my posts to reconsider you minority, if not exclusive, opinion about the lineage if Helmer himself admitted that he was never shown any document, nor had any personal knowledge on any of the sales from 1949.

No misinterpretations from me – only fact. And yes, George Numrich’s answer to a direct question about ownership rights for the Thompson is hard to ignore or overcome. See my first post; this information is clearly stated from the begining.You had good reason to ignore my proposal. But you continue to prop up your dead horse (so naturally I have to beat it) with more intentional misinterpretations of Helmer's book, and your last refuge, the "Gun Digest" article

Machining frames and receivers sounds like manufacturing to me. I do think it is very possible Numrich acquired many incomplete receiver blanks and that is what he manufactured in the years prior to the introduction of what we now refer to as the West Hurley Thompsons. Of course, this is just speculation on my part but I have seen enough NAC type Thompsons to think this is very plausible. There are no newly made from the ground up "Thompson's" with a N.A.C. suffix of prefix on them. These receivers were either imported by Numrich or were Colt/Savage/AO receivers that came out of the crates.

See above - Numrich, nor Trast, ever made any new TSMG receiver in Mamaroneck, or West Hurley, New York until 1975. If Numrich used a receiver that already had the "ORIGINAL" Auto-Ordnance markings then obviously Numrich didn't make the receiver, it was already made. Notice Helmer says "BUILDS" (not manufactures), sells and services TSMG's.

Interesting. Please cite your source. Hell, even by 1969, Numrich still had not unpacked the machinery from the crates he purchased back in 1951.

George stated he owned it all. Show me something to the contrary and I will re-consider my position. Helmer’s fine book only re-enforces the chain of succession...and George's statement of ownership. Thompson enthusiasts everywhere owe a great deal of gratitude to William Helmer. Your constant drum beat about the "chain is complete" is really more appropriately set to Aretha Franklin's 1967 tune. Coincidentally, the same year Numrich was making his anemic "doubtful any other company could produce a Thompson of any kind" protest to Amber Frey.

So now you are reverting to calling George Numrich a liar. Let’s keep this thread civil so everyone interested can enjoy. Of course he wasn't certain since he knew the truth about what he actually bought from Willis.

You guys keep walking back into the theater where the same movie is playing

Wake up folks, there appaears to be a SEQUEL!. While reading this Thread, and previous ones relating to this topic, something dawned on me this evening. I knew that I read somewhere that George Numrich did acquire the name "Auto-Ordnance". What follows comes from the Gun Digest Book Of Assault Weapons. No year indicated. Yellow Cover with 2 IMI UZI's shown. ISBN # 0-910676-96-8 I

Chapter 14, Page 111.

QUOTE

Back in 1951, when George Numrich, founder of Numrich Arms, purchased the name and stock of Auto-Ordnance Corporation, he thought he simply was buying more grist for a mill that marketed surplus arms and obsolete gun parts. But, when Numrich employees began opening packing cases, it was a surprise to discover that a number of the boxes contained complete Thompson submachine guns.

the Author goes onto say....

QUOTE

An occasional order did come to Numrich from police or sheriff's departments and the Sheik of Kuwait ordered a hundred Thompsons-all in the traditional 1921 and 1928 styling-in the mid-fifties. These were made up primarily from parts, although the frames and receivers were milled at the Numrich Arms facility as needed.

I think it very possible George Numrich let Helmer view all the records of the transaction.

TD

QUOTE

I suspect if Helmer had suspected anything different he would have researched further and at the very least reported his suspicions.

TD

Well, these two points of yours are invalidated. Bill was ahead of his time back in 1967-69. He didn't ask and he didn't tell long before his Christan namesake made that phrase immortal.

If you think that Nurmich's 1967 "doubtful" reply to whether anyone could get away with making the TSMG besides him is an emphatic declaration of assuredness, then I suggest you have surrendered any deference to the exactitude of the English language. Of course Numrich himself never made a TSMG, so he had no point of reference anyway.

Since Helmer cannot confirm anything about the sales of the crates (other than they were crates) from 1949 to 1951, your imaginary dot connecting ends in 1944. The only dots you see after that date are spots before your eyes.

Since W.J.H. is on the record now, it is disingenuous of you to continue to indulge in your interpretation of what you read in "The Gun That Made The Twenties Roar" when the author disavows your conclusions. You will need another source, and the self-aggrandizing Numrich article in Gun Digest does not change the conclusions of authors of TSMG publications such as Cox, Herigstadt, Richardson and of course Helmer himself, who rely on tangible documents, not word of mouth musings by the person who has a personal stake in the outcome.

You must have been under your seat for the entire picture. The "Gun Digest" article, that the "Gun Digest Review" is no doubt paraphrasing, is based on information Numrich gave himself. Since Numrich never set up any of the machines from the 1951 sale, he had no ability to manufacture TSMG receivers. The "Gun Digest Review" borrowed from Helmer's book substituting the erroneous "machined" for "milling." If the author of the "Gun Digest Review" read more thoroughly, he would have noticed that all the receivers Numrich used to assemble TSMG's already had the ORIGINAL Auto Ordnance markings already on them.

Since Numrich didn't stamp the Colt Hartford, Connecticut markings or the Savage/AO Bridgeport markings on these phantom receivers, all the N.A.C. suffix or prefix TSMG's have one or the other already on them, then where are any of these examples of the completely new "Thompson's" Numrich made? Does anyone have or seen a N.A.C. TSMG with the Mamaroneck, New York Address on it?

BigDaddy, Thanks for the interest. Have faith, the truth is beginning to take hold!

Arthur,Thanks to GIJIVE, above, it can be stated with certainty that Helmer did not view any of the documents related to the sale of the Thompson between Maguire Industries and Kilgore, and the subsequent sales to Willis and then to Numrich. Of course, since Numrich was engaged in the manufacturing of Thompsons during the time of the interviews and advertising this fact to the world I can see how this was not an issue during Helmer’s research. What Helmer did document was the chain of succession from Cleveland, OH to West Hurley, New York. Well, these two points of yours are invalidated. Bill was ahead of his time back in 1967-69. He didn't ask and he didn't tell long before his Christan namesake made that phrase immortal.

I don’t see any doubt in Numrich’s answer concerning ownership. And I do understand the English language – thank-you very much. It is well settled Numrich manufactured many Thompsons. If you think that Nurmich's 1967 "doubtful" reply to whether anyone could get away with making the TSMG besides him is an emphatic declaration of assuredness, then I suggest you have surrendered any deference to the exactitude of the English language. Of course Numrich himself never made a TSMG, so he had no point of reference anyway.

Helmer reported the Maguire Industries sale of the Thompson to Kilgore Manufacturing including the price and the reason Kilgore was interested in purchasing the Thompson. As per GIJIVE, Helmer as early as this morning stated he only knew what he wrote in his book – and he certainly documented the 1949 sale and the subsequent sales all the way to George Numrich. Since Helmer cannot confirm anything about the sales of the crates (other than they were crates) from 1949 to 1951, your imaginary dot connecting ends in 1944. The only dots you see after that date are spots before your eyes.

Helmer’s scholarly efforts are a very important part of this puzzle – see above. George Numrich was interviewed by another writer for an article by Ray Bearse, titled, The Thompson Submachine Gun, Weapon of War and Peace, published in the 1967 edition of Gun Digest. At the end of the story, George Numrich, in a discussion concerning the development of a new semi-auto Thompson by a company named Tri-State Tool and Die Company in Frostburg, MD, stated, to wit: “Numrich states that, since his company holds the patents, trademarks, etc. on the Thompson SMG, it is doubtful if any other company could produce a Thompson of any kind.” No misinterpretations from me – only fact. And yes, George Numrich’s answer to a direct question about ownership rights for the Thompson is hard to ignore or overcome. See my first post; this information is clearly stated from the beginning. I believe another source has been uncovered – see below. Since W.J.H. is on the record now, it is disingenuous of you to continue to indulge in your interpretation of what you read in "The Gun That Made The Twenties Roar" when the author disavows your conclusions. You will need another source, and the self-aggrandizing Numrich article in Gun Digest does not change the conclusions of authors of TSMG publications such as Cox, Herigstadt, Richardson and of course Helmer himself, who rely on tangible documents, not word of mouth musings by the person who has a personal stake in the outcome.